On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Edward Burns <edward.burns_at_oracle.com> wrote:
EB> First, I want to thank Arjan for his patience on this issue with the
EB> tree being closed, and his willingness to help determine the cause of
EB> the compatibility problem with ADF.
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:05:37 +0200, arjan tijms <arjan.tijms_at_gmail.com> said:
AT> No problem ;)
[...]
AT> There's one thing I don't quite understand here. If the problem was
AT> introduced between m03 and 2015-09-18, what happened on 2015-09-02,
AT> 2015-09-09, 2015-09-13, 2015-09-16 and 2015-09-18? Since that NWDIF
AT> number was lower on those dates as well.
EB> We must accept those spikes as noise since they can be dismissed as
EB> not part of a trend.
AT> From the given data, I think it's difficult to see a trend. Since m03,
AT> there are 5 dates where the number is low (I assume --- means 0?), and
AT> 3 dates where the number is high. Neither one consecutive. I.e. it's
AT> depending on what "---" means:
AT> low - low - high - low - low - low - high - high
AT> Just looking at these numbers I think both can be a spike. Notice
AT> they're also alternating, which may tell us something else.
EB> Since you asked, I will do that presently. We should have some results
EB> by Friday.
AT> Okay, so let's wait for that then.
We got lucky. The tests did run with 2.3.0-X last night so it picked up
the master. The NWDIF number went back up to 153.
AT> Another important question; did anyone already look at what actually
AT> failed when those high numbers were observed? If the failure would be
AT> because of say a database connection timing out then this may rule out
AT> a Mojarra commit.
I was able to look at it close enough to know the failures were not due
to environmental issues.
So, my original request for help in paring down the 261 commits to
something more manageable still stands. Anyone?
Thanks,
Ed
--
| edward.burns_at_oracle.com | office: +1 407 458 0017
| 7 Business days til JavaOne 2015
| 23 Business days til DOAG 2015